Is it really peace in Gaza – or are we right to be cautious?
Share this post:
Donald Trump has delightedly announced an apparent agreement to bring peace to Gaza after two years and two days of conflict.
But is he jumping the gun?
Trump said Israel and Hamas have “signed off on the first phase” of a 20-point peace plan he unveiled last week.
“This means that ALL of the Hostages will be released very soon, and Israel will withdraw their Troops to an agreed upon line as the first steps toward a Strong, Durable, and Everlasting Peace,” he wrote on his social media outlet Truth Social.
Never miss a Vox Political post!
Social media algorithms often hide what you want to read. If you’d like to get every article directly, here are your options:
RSS Feed – instant updates, no filters:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/get-every-vox-political-post-no-algorithms-no-blocks/Mailing List – updates delivered to your inbox:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/join-the-vox-political-mailing-list/Video Mailing List – updates go straight to your inbox:
https://dashboard.mailerlite.com/forms/1503041/155584006128141972/shareDiscord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGmTelegram Channel – every post, direct to your phone:
https://t.co/be9EMGHXFV
The BBC reckons this means the following:
A ceasefire will take effect. Reports in Israeli media suggest this will happen immediately, although a spokesperson for the prime minister’s office said it would begin within 24 hours of the cabinet’s approval.
The Israeli military will withdraw to a line that will leave it in control of about 53 per cent of the Strip… This is the first of three stages of Israeli withdrawal.
After this, a 72-hour countdown will begin during which Hamas must release all 20 of the hostages believed to be alive. The return of the bodies of the 28 deceased hostages would follow, although it is not clear how long that could take.
Israel would then release about 250 Palestinian prisoners serving life sentences in Israeli jails and 1,700 detainees from Gaza, a Palestinian source told the BBC. Their identities are currently unclear, but a list submitted by Hamas before the agreement was reached included high-profile figures serving multiple life sentences for deadly attacks on Israelis.
Israel will also return the bodies of 15 Gazans for the remains of each Israeli hostage, according to Trump’s plan.
Hundreds of lorries carrying humanitarian aid will also start entering Gaza, where a famine was confirmed by UN-backed experts in August.
If completed, the first phase of Trump’s 20-point plan would be followed by negotiations over the details of the later phases.
There are a lot of moving parts in that summary alone.
No wonder the reaction here in the UK has been extremely cautious.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer has described the agreement as “a moment of profound relief that will be felt all around the world,” acknowledged the suffering endured by civilians and hostages over the past two years and expressed gratitude for the diplomatic efforts of Egypt, Qatar, Turkey, and the United States in securing the deal.
But he stopped short of endorsing Trump’s bid for the Nobel Peace Prize, despite his central role in brokering the deal. Starmer declined to back the nomination, focusing instead on calls for assurances of the deal’s successful implementation.
Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper echoed Starmer, stressing the necessity of immediate action for the safe release of hostages and delivery of aid. She also highlighted the UK’s readiness to support the agreement’s implementation.
Labour’s Scottish leader, Anas Sarwar, welcomed the ceasefire but called for an urgent surge in aid to Gaza and a meaningful pathway to a two-state solution.
Wales’ First Minister, Eluned Morgan, expressed hope that the agreement marks the beginning of a just and lasting peace.
Advocacy groups like Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP) have welcomed the ceasefire as a vital step but emphasized the need for continued humanitarian access and accountability.
The politicians are presenting the ceasefire as a welcome relief rather than a historic breakthrough.
There’s an almost bureaucratic restraint in their language — all about “implementation,” “humanitarian access,” and “verification.”
Nobody wants to be caught celebrating a peace that collapses within days, as has happened so many times before.
And the public?
After years of protests and calls for stronger action to force a ceasefire, we might be expected to be generally enthusiastic about this – but we’ve seen it all before.
Many believe successive governments – both Tory and Labour – to have betrayed the wishes of the people by refusing to impose sanctions against an Israeli government they believe to have been trying to commit a genocide, and by actively trying to suppress protest against apparent UK support of that nation.
This is a “we’ll believe it when we see it” moment. The United Kingdom, like much of the international community, has seen too many “peace deals” that amounted to little more than a pause in the violence, followed by deeper entrenchment.
So the mood is of déjà vu.
After years of spin and slaughter, nobody is ready to applaud until the guns not only fall silent but are actually put away – along with the verbal recriminations that have so often led to more bloodshed.
Share this post:
Starmer says he is backing pubs – but he’s serving spin, not solutions
Share this post:
The UK’s Labour government is considering changing conditions for pubs in England and Wales. Has it listened to campaigners like Vox Political?
Apparently not.
According to the BBC, pubs may be allowed to stay open longer, serve food outdoors and host more live music, under the government’s planned review of licensing laws.
It also plans to cut the cost of licensing, extend business rates relief and cut alcohol duty on draught pints.
It is giving landlords and local communities a chance to have their say in a four-week call for evidence – and local pub landlords may have a lot to say.
Never miss a Vox Political post!
Social media algorithms often hide what you want to read. If you’d like to get every article directly, here are your options:
RSS Feed – instant updates, no filters:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/get-every-vox-political-post-no-algorithms-no-blocks/Mailing List – updates delivered to your inbox:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/join-the-vox-political-mailing-list/Video Mailing List – updates go straight to your inbox:
https://dashboard.mailerlite.com/forms/1503041/155584006128141972/shareDiscord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGmTelegram Channel – every post, direct to your phone:
https://t.co/be9EMGHXFV
Hospitality businesses launched a campaign called #TaxedOut in a bid to get the government to change the conditions under which they have to operate in the UK.
This demanded a reduction of VAT from 20 per cent to around 10-13 per cent; a reversal of the decision to increase employers’ National Insurance contributions; and restore the 75 per cent business rates relief that was recently abolished.
Those are direct fiscal levers. They would immediately change the operating conditions for pubs, cafés and restaurants.
By contrast, Starmer’s “licensing reforms” are regulatory tweaks — about permitting pubs to open later, host more live music, and serve food outside. They seem business-friendly but cost the Treasury nothing.
Even the three supposed “sweeteners” in the government’s announcement – cutting licensing costs, extending business rates relief and reducing alcohol duty on draught pints – fall short in crucial ways:
Cutting licensing costs is largely administrative, not economic.
The “cost of licensing” refers to local authority fees — typically hundreds, not thousands, of pounds per premises per year. It’s not a major factor in pub insolvencies; it’s a rounding error compared with VAT, National Insurance, energy bills, and business rates.
So reducing that cost — or simplifying renewals — might make life slightly easier bureaucratically, but it does nothing to fix the financial pressures that are actually driving closures.
It’s a reform for press releases, not survival.
Extending business rates relief may seem promising — but the devil is in the details – the duration and the depth.
Hospitality leaders have consistently asked for the restoration of 75 per cent rates relief, which the government scrapped this year.
The BBC piece doesn’t say this relief will be restored to that level — just that there will be some extension or reform.
If Labour merely extends the existing smaller relief or promises to review the system, that’s not the same as reinstating the major relief the sector actually wants.
And even if partial relief is offered, it’s a short-term patch — not the structural reform of the broken business rates system that’s been demanded for years.
And cutting alcohol duty on draught pints is, again, a small gesture dressed up as bold reform.
Duty on draught beer is already lower than bottled or canned alcohol — thanks to “Draught Relief” introduced by Rishi Sunak in 2023 which cut duty on beer sold in pubs by 9.2 per cent.
Further reducing it by a few pennies a pint is politically easy, but economically trivial.
It saves a pub maybe £100–£200 a year, depending on sales — while energy bills alone have risen by thousands.
So, like the rest of the package, it’s a headline-friendly move with minimal real-world effect.
Put them all together, and these measures comprise an optical policy, not an economic one.
In practical terms: The government is offering longer opening hours to pubs that can’t afford to keep the lights on.
That’s the gap: none of the real industry demands are being met — because meeting them would mean reversing fiscal policy decisions that Treasury orthodoxy refuses to question.
The review will please big chains and conglomerates — Greene King, Stonegate, Mitchells & Butlers — that have the capital, staffing and economies of scale to profit from extended hours.
They are already benefiting from a small business plan that the Starmer government unveiled earlier this year, with reforms to tackle late payments, initiatives for easier access to finance, and a new Business Growth Service.
But for independent pubs, which make up the backbone of local high streets, later hours just mean:
-
Higher staff and energy costs
-
More strain on already-thin margins
-
Greater exposure to antisocial behaviour and policing costs
In effect, it creates a two-tier market: the giants expand, while the locals burn out. I once called it “market consolidation” — and that’s exactly what it is.
And it ignores the real problem: demand.
Even if every regulatory hurdle disappeared overnight, you can’t sell pints that people can’t afford.
Real wages in the UK have stagnated for over a decade, while disposable incomes have fallen sharply since 2022. Mortgage and rent costs have exploded. Energy bills are still double pre-crisis levels.
The average household has less to spend, and when they do spend, it’s often on cheaper supermarket alcohol — a symptom of economic insecurity.
So the government is trying to fix a demand crisis with a supply-side gimmick.
It’s the same logic that underpins its “small business plan” — talk about “growth” while ignoring the collapse in consumer purchasing power.
One of my friends, who is a pub licensee, opens only three days a week. She responds to calls for her pub to open on the remaining days by saying footfall would have to increase to at least 50 people per day, spending about twice as much as any of my fellow customers can currently manage (I’m a writer of online politics and therefore poverty-stricken, so my budget is significantly lower).
I haven’t spoken to her about these plans – yet – but I’m willing to bet she will be unimpressed.
To summarise:
The licensing review gives the illusion of action.
It does not deliver what the industry’s #TaxedOut campaign has demanded.
It helps the largest operators, not the small independents.
Cutting the cost of licensing is cosmetic.
Extending rates relief would be temporary and partial.
Cutting draught duty is symbolic.
It completely sidesteps the real crisis — that millions of people simply don’t have the spare cash for a pint anymore.
Share this post:
No, Matthew Syed — UK politics hasn’t “moved wildly to the Left” – it’s been dragged Right
Share this post:
I stayed where I always was, politically, and yet it seems to me that the jamboree of British politics has moved wildly to the Left.
That’s what Times columnist Matthew Syed told viewers of Politics Live, echoing a refrain that has become increasingly familiar among establishment commentators who like to believe that their own views are moderate, while the world around them has lurched left.
It is a comforting myth for those who have moved rightwards themselves — but demonstrably false.
The Overton Window — the range of political ideas considered acceptable at any given time — has not shifted to the Left in the United Kingdom.
The last fifteen years have seen a steady and measurable rightward movement across policy, rhetoric, and political identity.
Far from being marginalised, ideas once considered reactionary or extreme have entered the mainstream, shaping major parties and the public conversation.
Never miss a Vox Political post!
Social media algorithms often hide what you want to read. If you’d like to get every article directly, here are your options:
RSS Feed – instant updates, no filters:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/get-every-vox-political-post-no-algorithms-no-blocks/Mailing List – updates delivered to your inbox:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/join-the-vox-political-mailing-list/Video Mailing List – updates go straight to your inbox:
https://dashboard.mailerlite.com/forms/1503041/155584006128141972/shareDiscord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGmTelegram Channel – every post, direct to your phone:
https://t.co/be9EMGHXFV
Look at the political terrain.
Since 2016, the Conservative Party has grown more populist, nationalist and authoritarian in tone.
Brexit nationalism hardened into a politics of scapegoating — of migrants, the unemployed, protesters, and anyone seen as “outsiders”.
Even now, under Kemi Badenoch’s leadership, the Conservative Party toys with leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, proposing to curtail fundamental protections that were once considered cornerstones of the UK’s moral order.
That is not moderation; it is regression.
Alongside this, Reform UK has become a significant force.
In polls it has passed Labour and in certain regions it has overtaken the Conservatives.
Its appeal rests almost entirely on pushing ideas further to the right: hard borders, deportations, anti-“woke” rhetoric, climate change denial, and open hostility toward migrants and international institutions.
The fact that a party defined by those stances can gain ground — and draw Tory MPs into its ranks — shows how much the political conversation has shifted.
Instead of holding firm to liberal democratic norms, the major parties are now competing to sound tougher than Nigel Farage.
Even Labour, under Keir Starmer, has adjusted to this new environment.
The party’s rhetoric on immigration has hardened markedly: talk of “border control”, reduced legal migration, and stricter family reunification policies has replaced previous commitments to openness and human rights.
Labour’s front bench no longer speaks of freedom of movement as a virtue; it treats migration as a problem to be managed.
That is not evidence of a leftward turn — it is triangulation in response to a resurgent right.
Polling supports this.
Surveys by Ipsos and others consistently show large majorities of British voters saying immigration levels are too high.
Reform UK is now seen by more people as the party most trusted to handle immigration and asylum than either Labour or the Conservatives.
Parliamentary debates reflect the same drift: researchers have noted that the language used in Westminster about migration has become increasingly “securitised” — focusing on illegality, borders, and control — and less on humanity or integration.
When the vocabulary of the legislature itself changes, that’s the Overton Window moving.
This trend extends beyond Westminster.
Across the UK, far-right and anti-immigration protests have become more common and more violent.
Rallies that once would have drawn small groups of extremists now attract thousands, sometimes with elected politicians lending implicit approval.
On social media, conspiracy theories about refugees and “replacement” have moved from the outer margins of online culture into mainstream feeds, repeated uncritically by commentators and MPs alike.
Culturally, the tone of public discourse has shifted too.
The idea of withdrawing from international human rights treaties is no longer unthinkable.
Government ministers regularly attack judges, lawyers, and NGOs for upholding asylum law.
The rhetoric of “British sovereignty” has morphed into a justification for cruelty: the belief that mistreating the vulnerable is a form of patriotic defiance.
That’s not left-wing – it’s authoritarian right-wing nationalism — and it dominates the political airwaves.
Even the supposed evidence of a “Left shift” — greater acceptance of diversity and progressive social norms — doesn’t hold up when examined properly.
Yes, Britain has liberalised culturally on issues such as sexuality and gender, and younger people are more inclusive than their elders.
But that’s a social development, not a political one.
It has not produced a surge of enthusiasm for socialist economics or radical reform.
It sits alongside, not instead of, a growing appetite for border enforcement, austerity-lite fiscal discipline, and national security authoritarianism.
The cultural liberalisation that some pundits fixate on has distracted them from noticing the political regression happening under their noses.
The rise of the far right, both in Parliament and on the streets, is not a fringe curiosity; it’s the clearest indicator of the direction of travel.
Hope Not Hate’s State of Hate reports chart the steady mainstreaming of extremist narratives and the normalisation of far-right talking points in broadcast media.
In 2025, public discourse around asylum seekers has grown so hostile that violence has followed words — yet newspapers and television panels still debate whether “migrants are taking too much”.
That’s what a rightward Overton shift looks like in real time.
Meanwhile, the supposed “Left” that Syed derides has withered.
There is no mass movement for radical redistribution or nationalisation; the Labour Party has distanced itself from even modest social democratic measures.
Starmer’s leadership has been defined by his refusal to challenge the economic consensus, not by any attempt to push it leftwards.
A genuinely leftward shift would have seen public ownership, wealth taxes, and worker empowerment regain legitimacy.
Instead, they’ve been buried under the mantra of “stability” — a word that means, in practice, preserving the inequalities of the last decade.
So when Matthew Syed claims that his politics haven’t changed, but the country has moved left around him, he is declaring himself a fantasist.
The facts show the opposite: the UK’s political and media establishment has absorbed the language of the right, normalised its framing, and turned punitive nationalism into the new centre ground.
The “radical left” Syed imagines is a mirage — a convenient scapegoat for his own unease at how far mainstream conservatism has been allowed to stretch the boundaries of acceptable debate.
The truth is plain: the United Kingdom has been dragged rightward, not leftward.
The rise of Reform UK, the hardening of both major parties on immigration, the populist attack on human rights, and the emboldening of street extremism all tell the same story.
The window hasn’t moved to the Left; it has been yanked open to the Right — and those pretending otherwise are working to push it further.
Share this post:
Thousands sue over river pollution – but is it already too late?
Share this post:
I walked along the River Wye this summer with a friend – and had to warn her not to dip her feet in the water. The risk of infection or sickness from pollution was too great.
It’s tragic that we’ve reached this point.
I’ve lived close to the Wye for years and watched it change from a sparkling, life-filled river into something visibly sick.
Another friend of mine, who’s been angling there for decades, told me fish numbers have dropped by around 60 per cent in the last two years. I checked the figures and he’s right. This is not a phantom crisis.
Now, nearly 4,000 people have joined the biggest environmental lawsuit in UK history – accusing major poultry producers and Welsh Water of “extensive and widespread pollution” in the Wye, Lugg and Usk rivers. I am surrounded by filth.
Never miss a Vox Political post!
Social media algorithms often hide what you want to read. If you’d like to get every article directly, here are your options:
RSS Feed – instant updates, no filters:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/get-every-vox-political-post-no-algorithms-no-blocks/Mailing List – updates delivered to your inbox:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/join-the-vox-political-mailing-list/Video Mailing List – updates go straight to your inbox:
https://dashboard.mailerlite.com/forms/1503041/155584006128141972/shareDiscord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGmTelegram Channel – every post, direct to your phone:
https://t.co/be9EMGHXFV
The claimants – including local residents, anglers, swimmers and wildlife enthusiasts – say pollution from chicken farms, sewage spills and farm run-off has devastated the rivers, driving away fish, killing off aquatic life and harming local businesses.
Wildlife filmmaker Justine Evans, acting as the lead claimant, says the Wye she once loved for canoeing and swimming has turned murky and slimy.
Slimy is exactly the word I would use for it!
Former Olympic swimmer Roland Lee, who moved to be near the river, now warns people not to touch it.
The case, brought by the law firm Leigh Day, targets Avara Foods, Freemans of Newent and Welsh Water. They deny wrongdoing – Avara claiming it is being misunderstood, and Welsh Water saying it has already spent more than £100 million improving sites along the Wye and Usk.
But residents – like myself – are sceptical.
The Wye, once one of the United Kingdom’s most beautiful and biologically diverse rivers, is now a symbol of government failure – and of what happens when corporate pollution goes unchecked for too long.
Environmental campaigners lost a major court challenge over the Wye last year.
Now, with both Westminster and Cardiff Bay governments only just setting aside £1 million to “investigate” pollution sources, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that official action will be too little, too late.
Let’s remember it was the Tory governments of 2010-24 that allowed the pollution to happen, and Tory governments of the 1980s-90s that privatised water and sewage, making it possible in the first place.
Living near the Wye today, it is easy to feel despair – but also anger.
The river wasn’t poisoned overnight.
It was neglected and ignored.
And if this lawsuit doesn’t succeed, the generations to come will see it less as a river than as a flowing cess pool.
Share this post:
Record deaths of homeless people in the UK are a political choice – and there’s a better way
Share this post:
Homeless people in the United Kingdom are dying in record numbers — 1,611 lives lost last year alone — because successive governments have refused to treat homelessness as the national emergency it is.
The Museum of Homelessness, which has compiled the figures after the government stopped doing so in 2022, says the deaths “show how homeless people continue to be deeply failed”.
That’s putting it mildly!
These deaths are not isolated tragedies; they are the predictable result of years of deliberate policy choices that have punished the poorest and dismantled the systems meant to protect them.
Never miss a Vox Political post!
Social media algorithms often hide what you want to read. If you’d like to get every article directly, here are your options:
RSS Feed – instant updates, no filters:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/get-every-vox-political-post-no-algorithms-no-blocks/Mailing List – updates delivered to your inbox:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/join-the-vox-political-mailing-list/Video Mailing List – updates go straight to your inbox:
https://dashboard.mailerlite.com/forms/1503041/155584006128141972/shareDiscord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGmTelegram Channel – every post, direct to your phone:
https://t.co/be9EMGHXFV
A crisis measured in lives
Most of those who died — two-thirds — were not even living on the streets, but in temporary or supported accommodation that was supposed to keep them safe.
169 people died while rough sleeping. 11 were children.
Three-quarters of all the dead were men, but that is where the pattern stops being statistical and becomes personal: people dying in hostels, in shelters, in bin sheds, or unseen.
The worst increases were in Nottingham and Exeter, where deaths more than doubled.
London still recorded the highest total number.
In England as a whole, deaths rose by 16 per cent in a year; Northern Ireland saw an increase of more than a third.
Only Scotland – run by the SNP – showed real progress, with deaths down by 18 per cent, thanks largely to stronger housing support in Glasgow and Edinburgh.
The government’s abandonment of official data collection is telling – hiding the scale of the problem and dodging accountability, which is exactly the opposite of what a civilised nation should do when confronted with such suffering.
A decade and a half of deliberate neglect
Homelessness has soared since 2010, driven by the policies of Conservative-led governments that shredded social housing provision, slashed local authority budgets and turned benefits into traps of humiliation.
Council housing was sold off faster than it was replaced.
Mental health and addiction services were cut back.
Even public spaces were made hostile, with spikes installed to keep rough sleepers away and benches redesigned so people could not rest on them.
Each of these decisions was made in full knowledge of what it would do.
Each pushed more people into insecurity and despair.
And each has brought us to this: record numbers of deaths that ministers prefer to describe as “heartbreaking” rather than acknowledge as preventable.
Labour’s inaction continues the pattern
Those hoping the Labour government would change direction have seen little to justify their faith.
While ministers repeat that they are “accelerating efforts” to tackle homelessness, the Museum of Homelessness reports no visible improvement.
Labour’s pledge to build 180,000 homes for social rent over the next decade sounds impressive until you realise it averages only 18,000 a year — nowhere near enough to meet current need, let alone reduce it.
Meanwhile, the churn of ministers — with Angela Rayner and Rushanara Ali both moving on from their housing and homelessness roles this year (2025) — shows how little priority the issue really has.
The human cost of political failure
Behind the numbers are people like Anthony Marks, assaulted while sheltering in a bin shed near London’s King’s Cross and dead within weeks, and Richard Sanders, who died unnoticed in a hostel in south London.
His mother was only told nine days later.
These are not isolated stories.
They are the natural consequence of a system that values property more than people.
Utah’s example: proof that political will works
It does not have to be this way.
In the ultra-conservative US state of Utah, authorities faced the same problem two decades ago — and made a radically different choice.
From 2005, the state launched a Housing First policy, giving homeless people permanent homes with supportive services instead of leaving them to cycle through shelters, hospitals and jails.
The results were astonishing.
Chronic homelessness fell by up to 90 per cent. It also saved the state money: keeping someone homeless cost about £17,000 dollars a year in emergency services, but housing them cost only around £11,000.
Utah’s officials did the maths and realised compassion was cheaper — and far more effective.
The lesson is clear: when a government decides homelessness is unacceptable, it can end it. It requires commitment, funding and a refusal to treat housing as a privilege.
A policy of neglect
The United Kingdom has never had such a programme on a national scale.
Instead, we see pilot schemes, token grants and speeches about “root causes” while people continue to die.
Even the word temporary has lost its meaning: families live for years in unsafe hostels or B&Bs because there is nowhere else to go.
Every death is a measure of failure — and of political cowardice.
The means to end homelessness exist, proven by evidence from Utah and elsewhere. What we lack is the will to use them.
Governments that can afford to write off billions in tax breaks for the wealthy could afford to house every homeless person in the country.
They simply choose not to.
The 1,611 lives lost last year are not just statistics; they are the visible outcome of political decisions.
Homelessness is not inevitable; it is engineered — and it can be ended if leaders care enough to act.
Share this post:
- ☕ Support Vox Political on Ko-fi or donate via PayPal
- 📘 Buy our books — political analysis and satire you won’t find elsewhere
- 📨 Join the mailing list for real headlines, direct to your inbox
- 🔗 Follow us on Facebook and Twitter/X
Welcome to Vox Political – watch this first!
Get The Whip Line – July 2025!
Support independent journalism — and receive Vox Political’s latest collection of fearless reporting.
💻 Donate £15 via Ko-fi and get the eBook
📚 Donate £20 via Ko-fi and get the paperback
👉 Claim your copy now:
Support on Ko-fi →
No billionaire backers. Just sharp, uncompromising political journalism — powered by readers like you.
Grab your copy today — support real journalism and keep it free from corporate influence!